Parliamentary leadership has found itself in the eye of a storm over the sacking of 48 staffers for allegedly possessing fake academic papers and the retention of 36 others under unclear circumstances.
Soon after dismissing the 48, the Parliamentary Service Commission (PSC) quietly advertised the vacant positions, a move insiders suspect was aimed at creating room to bring in preferred candidates. The Commission issued an internal advert inviting applications from within Parliament, with interviews slated for early this month.
However, the controversy took a dramatic turn when six of the dismissed employees moved to court and won a landmark legal battle after the Employment and Labour Relations Court ruled that their dismissal was unlawful and violated their constitutional rights.
In a petition filed before the court, the six—led by Ashton Omedo Akaranga and Zainabu Wario Sora—accused PSC of breaching multiple provisions of the Constitution, including the rights to fair labour practices, human dignity, and fair administrative action.
They sought sweeping reliefs, urging the court to declare that “the dismissal of the Petitioners… is illegal, unlawful, null and void ab initio,” and to order their reinstatement without loss of benefits or seniority.
The petitioners also challenged the disciplinary process, arguing that “the show cause processes, the suspension and the entire disciplinary processes… were unlawful, illegal, null and void.”
They further asked the court to compel PSC to restore their salaries and release all withheld dues, alongside general and exemplary damages for alleged violations of their fundamental rights.
“The Respondents’ purported action to withhold… the Petitioners’ monthly salaries, allowances and/or benefits… is illegal and unlawful,” the petition stated, adding that they had effectively been barred from accessing their workstations and carrying out their duties.
In its judgment delivered on March 11, 2026, Justice Hellen Wasilwa found in favour of the petitioners, faulting PSC’s actions and awarding compensation.
“The summary dismissal of the petitioners was unfairly and unjustly done,” the court ruled.
While the employees had sought reinstatement, the court opted for monetary compensation and other remedies instead.
Each of the six petitioners was awarded Ksh2 million in damages for the violation of their constitutional rights.
“Each petitioner is entitled to damages for breach of their constitutional rights equivalent to Kshs 2 million,” the ruling stated.
The court also ordered PSC to pay the petitioners their full salaries from the time of suspension to dismissal, effectively compensating them for lost income during the disputed disciplinary process. In addition, they were awarded payment for accrued leave days.
“Each petitioner will be paid their full salary from time of suspension to dismissal accordingly,” the court ordered, adding that they were “entitled to payment of their accrued leave days at the time of dismissal.”
PSC was also directed to bear the costs of the suit, with interest accruing at court rates from the date of judgment until full payment.
The ruling brings to a close a protracted dispute over the legality of internal disciplinary procedures within PSC and underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding employees’ constitutional rights. Although reinstatement was not granted, the judgment affirms that employers must strictly adhere to due process when disciplining staff.
Beyond the court ruling, PSC has faced further scrutiny over claims that 36 employees implicated in the fake academic papers scandal were spared under questionable circumstances.
Some insiders allege that sexual favors, tribal affiliations, and financial inducements influenced decisions to retain certain staff. Of the 36 employees reportedly spared, 23 are women and 13 are men, raising concerns about possible sexual favoritism in employment decisions.
Those allegedly spared include officers from the Sergeant-at-Arms office, supply chain, human resource, the Commission’s secretariat, the Clerk’s office, public communications, and legislative and procedural services.
PSC has, however, strongly denied any wrongdoing.
“The Commission has not at any time received any adverse findings in respect of any of the named 32 members of staff from any of the academic and professional organisations from which confirmation of the authenticity of their certificates was sought,” said Jeremiah M. Nyegenye, Clerk of the Senate and PSC Secretary.
Nyegenye maintained that none of the officers had been found with fake certificates or subjected to disciplinary proceedings.
Court filings paint a detailed picture of how the dispute unfolded. The petitioners said the saga began when PSC issued notices to show cause between August 2024 and February 2025, accusing them of forging academic certificates with intent to defraud their employer.
Each employee was given seven days to respond. The petitioners said they complied, “each disputing and denying the Respondents’ allegations,” but were nonetheless suspended indefinitely.
They argued that the suspension was carried out without due process.
“The Respondents suspended the Petitioners indefinitely, without providing them with the evidence they relied on… and without inviting them for a show cause hearing,” the court document states.
They further claimed they were denied the right to be accompanied by a colleague or union representative during the disciplinary process.
“While suspending the Petitioners, the Respondents did not inform them about their rights to be accompanied by another employee or a shop floor union representative,” the filing adds.
The workers also described the severe financial toll of the suspension.
During this period, they said they were stripped of salaries, allowances, and employment benefits, including medical cover and housing allowances, and were directed to stay away from their workplaces indefinitely.
“The Respondents withheld the Petitioners’ monthly salaries… and all their employment benefits,” the application states.
They were also allegedly told they would forfeit annual leave accrued during the suspension.
“To date, the Petitioners are still on suspension without their monthly salaries, house allowances, medical allowances, and other employment benefits,” the document reads.
The petitioners argued that these actions amounted to constructive dismissal and violated both labour laws and constitutional safeguards.
They told the court that the disciplinary process was rushed and unfair, claiming they were not given sufficient time to respond to the allegations or informed of hearing dates.
“The Respondents did not grant them sufficient time to respond to the show cause letters… and never informed the Petitioners the date of the hearing,” the documents state.
As a result, they said they were pushed into financial and emotional distress.
“That as a direct consequence… the Petitioners have been seriously affected, for they are now unable to meet their financial obligations and to provide for their families’ basic needs,” the court documents read.
They described struggling to afford essentials such as food, rent, clothing, medical care, and school fees, with some facing the risk of losing property due to loan defaults.
“In addition, the Petitioners are now living in fear as their properties are on the verge of being auctioned,” the petition states.
The workers maintained that their suspension without pay and benefits was “procedurally unlawful, unconstitutional, and is akin to constructive dismissal.”
They insisted the entire process was flawed and carried out “in utter violation of all the procedural and substantive laws on suspension of employees.”
In seeking relief, they urged the court to intervene urgently, warning that failure to do so would expose them to continued hardship.
“That in the interest of justice and fairness, the orders sought herein should be granted forthwith… otherwise the Respondents will continue to subject the Petitioners to extreme, unwarranted and irreparable suffering,” the filing states.
They argued that they had met all legal thresholds for the court to grant the orders sought, including reinstatement, payment of withheld salaries, and damages.
The case highlights growing scrutiny of disciplinary procedures within public institutions and the willingness of courts to intervene where due process is violated.
previous post
